In a striking and carefully argued Newsweek editorial, bioethicist Moti Gorin and psychiatrist Kathleen McDeavitt urge liberals to reconsider their assumptions about pediatric “gender-affirming” medical care. Their appeal is unusual not because it is partisan, but because it is not: both authors identify as liberals and were contributors to the recent review issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services titled Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices.
The authors begin by acknowledging widespread distrust of HHS—especially among progressives after years of controversy surrounding public health institutions. But they argue that skepticism should not excuse disengagement, particularly when the evidence concerns vulnerable children.
Their central claim is straightforward: many organizations and professionals trusted by the political left have embraced a medical model for pediatric gender distress that is not supported by strong scientific evidence.
A Fragile Foundation for a Sweeping Medical Practice
The editorial traces the origins of today’s “gender-affirming” approach to a small and methodologically weak Dutch study involving just 70 adolescents. Most of the participants were same-sex attracted, and all who proceeded to medical transition were rendered sterile. One patient died from surgical complications, others were excluded from analysis due to adverse outcomes, and some were lost to follow-up. Yet despite these limitations, the study became the foundation for a sweeping international medical practice involving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sometimes surgery.
Gorin and McDeavitt argue that serious ethical concerns have since been minimized or obscured. They note reports of unfavorable findings being buried, including completed suicides among minors placed on hormones. They also highlight the role of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which removed age limits for medical interventions under political pressure while failing to warn patients about risks such as permanent sexual dysfunction.
The HHS review, the authors explain, reached conclusions that should alarm anyone committed to justice and evidence-based medicine. The risks documented in the review include infertility, impaired sexual function, decreased bone density, delayed cognitive development, and irreversible surgical consequences.
Progressive Countries Lead the Retreat
Importantly, the authors point out that this reassessment is not driven by conservative politics. Some of the first countries to restrict pediatric medical transition were progressive social democracies, including Finland and Sweden, followed by the United Kingdom. These nations conducted systematic reviews and concluded that the benefits of medical transition for minors were unproven and outweighed by the harms.
The editorial closes by proposing an alternative: non-medical therapeutic support that helps young people manage distress without rushing them into irreversible interventions. Most adolescents, the authors note, will see gender-related discomfort resolve over time. While the issue remains politically polarized, polling shows that a majority of Democratic voters already oppose pediatric medical transition.
Gorin and McDeavitt’s plea is simple but bracing: liberals should read the HHS review for themselves (link above). Doing so, they argue, is not a betrayal of progressive values—but an affirmation of them.
+++